More than 60,000 Rent-Stabilized Apartments are Now Vacant (Russia: homeless, housing)

[BugsyPal]

Originally Posted by bb4492

Hi All, this is a long forum so I may have missed this part of the discussion if it’s happened already. I wanted to ask and see if anyone has ever had any luck convincing a landlord who is warehousing a rent-stabilized apartment to rent it out to them. Imagine if someone approached a landlord and offered to pay them say $10k towards the cost of renovations in exchange for a lease. Sounds like an unlikely scenario but I’m wondering if this situation could ever legally occur.

I personally found an incredible deal to sublet a rent-stabilized apartment during covid in 2021. I’ve been here for 2 years but the tenant wants to come back and I have to leave. I pay her $1700/month for a large studio in a doorman building with a balcony in Noho. I feel like I have no options on where to move b/c I don’t see any studios in the same price range that are remotely close to what I have now. Probably a common experience for those who had great covid deals.

But if I found a unit nearby around the same price and could “buy” a lease, I totally would consider that if I saw myself in the apartment long term. This is coming from a pretty uneducated-on-rent- stabilization person so it might be a dumb question.

There are websites where tenants seeking to break leases post things. Don't know if you'll find a sweet deal though, but worth looking into.

[Kefir King]

Pass an ordinance dunning these apartments for $1000/month to go into state coffers. After non-payment for 12 months the empty apartments are forfeit to the State/City for the needy/homeless.

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by Kefir King

Pass an ordinance dunning these apartments for $1000/month to go into state coffers. After non-payment for 12 months the empty apartments are forfeit to the State/City for the needy/homeless.

More communism and or socialism , just what we need.

Owners should be free to do as they please with properties..they are under no requirement to provide housing for anyone unless they agreed by contract like with guaranteed renewal.

If the city wants to control apartments and whether or not tenants are in them let them build more city housing

[BBMW]

The LLs are holding the apartments because they think at some point they can get them out of registration. Not to long ago, this was fairly easy, but the state has made it much harder. Now the only way to getit done is to tear down the building and build something new.

But if they rent you an apartment, it will fall under regulation, and they're stuck with you forever. That's exactly what they're trying to avoid. So your idea won't work.

Originally Posted by bb4492

Hi All, this is a long forum so I may have missed this part of the discussion if it’s happened already. I wanted to ask and see if anyone has ever had any luck convincing a landlord who is warehousing a rent-stabilized apartment to rent it out to them. Imagine if someone approached a landlord and offered to pay them say $10k towards the cost of renovations in exchange for a lease. Sounds like an unlikely scenario but I’m wondering if this situation could ever legally occur.

I personally found an incredible deal to sublet a rent-stabilized apartment during covid in 2021. I’ve been here for 2 years but the tenant wants to come back and I have to leave. I pay her $1700/month for a large studio in a doorman building with a balcony in Noho. I feel like I have no options on where to move b/c I don’t see any studios in the same price range that are remotely close to what I have now. Probably a common experience for those who had great covid deals.

But if I found a unit nearby around the same price and could “buy” a lease, I totally would consider that if I saw myself in the apartment long term. This is coming from a pretty uneducated-on-rent- stabilization person so it might be a dumb question.

[BugsyPal]

Originally Posted by Kefir King

Pass an ordinance dunning these apartments for $1000/month to go into state coffers. After non-payment for 12 months the empty apartments are forfeit to the State/City for the needy/homeless.

You must have been absent during high school civics/government course when they covered United States Constitution, in particular the taking clause.

[Kefir King]

The taking clause only became a THING when the right wing got control of the courts of the United States.

I guarantee you that "the taking clause" was NEVER a part of any civics class in the United States.

I presume you are prepared to quote the line in the Constitution that mentions "taking?" Or not?

[dfc99]

Originally Posted by Kefir King

The taking clause only became a THING when the right wing got control of the courts of the United States.

I guarantee you that "the taking clause" was NEVER a part of any civics class in the United States.

I presume you are prepared to quote the line in the Constitution that mentions "taking?" Or not?

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-c...-v/clauses/634

...It also includes situations in which the government permanently deprives a private owner of possession of the asset or gives the asset (or the right to permanently physically occupy the asset) to someone else. We agree that the compensation requirement must apply not only to land but to all forms of private property...

The rent moratorium gave possession of apartments to the tenants by denying landlords the ability to evict them as is the right of legitimate property owners. Rent stabilization laws effectively do the same thing by denying landlords the ability to raise rents on their private property. The government is ordering landlords to lose money, which is a taking.

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by dfc99

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-c...-v/clauses/634





The rent moratorium gave possession of apartments to the tenants by denying landlords the ability to evict them as is the right of legitimate property owners. Rent stabilization laws effectively do the same thing by denying landlords the ability to raise rents on their private property. The government is ordering landlords to lose money, which is a taking.

This is false .

Landlord still own the apartments and they are not taken .there are just some temporary restrictions imposed .

Courts have not ruled that not legal so far.

Landlords in the stabilized market place also agreed VOLUNTARILY by contract to abide by board voted increases and guaranteed renewals in exchange for tax perks and financing perks allowing them to keep more of what they earn to compensate them .

Most have voluntarily entered the stabilized market place just like we did .

We bought for cents on the dollar knowing the terms we were accepting..

No one had to be stabilized since I think 1974 if they built . Only not one developer built a rental building open to all ..

So to get developers back perks and incentives were put in place .

Most Developers and landlords voluntarily accepted being stabilized knowingly and wanted to be stabilized because of the perks . Or they paid cents on the dollar like we did when we bought and like the investor group did who bought our remaining interest in the remaining stabilized apartments we had left .

Many who take part in the 421a and j51 programs can leave being stabilized by stopping the perks once they are eligible . Many choose not to leave being stabilized.

Know why ? Because it can be very lucrative to give up some rent in exchange for other offsetting benefits .

In our case we got no tax or financing perks but the apartments were sold for cents on the dollar as far as what we paid for them .

The investor group we sold to got no tax or financing perks either ,.

But what they got is two co-ops in the second most desirable coop building in Manhattan for 360k for both at break even rents worth 1.1 million EACH back then , and we payed even less when we bought .

SO VERY FEW WHO ARE IN THIS MARKETPLACE are not here voluntarily

You may want to get your facts correct..

[Hudlander]

What is the deal with the 'One shot' deal in NYC?
Does somebody just have to be behind on their rent OR do they also need to have a case against them pending?

Can the person still qualify if they left the unit and owe back rent?
How long does the person need to stay in the that unit if they receive assistance?

[BugsyPal]

Originally Posted by Hudlander

What is the deal with the 'One shot' deal in NYC?
Does somebody just have to be behind on their rent OR do they also need to have a case against them pending?

Can the person still qualify if they left the unit and owe back rent?
How long does the person need to stay in the that unit if they receive assistance?

OSD is supposed to be a one time loan for those experiencing sudden financial issues to housing.

Starting under BdeB it became a slush fund that pretty much gave out money to those in certain demographics that they did not have to repay.

https://therealdeal.com/2021/07/26/a...yor-signs-off/

https://www.coalitionforthehomeless....ne-shot-deals/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ing-court.html